Open Letter to Delaware’s Republican Candidates
This is a REPOST of the original blog post found on BlueHenConservative by Evan Queitsch: http://bluehenconservative.blogspot.com/2010/05/open-letter-to-delawares-republican.html
Dear Delaware Republican Delegates,
I don’t mean to be a bother and I apologize for this unsolicited email however, I firmly believe that there are some things that need to be said before we cast our final votes at the 2010 Delaware GOP Convention. We will be choosing the “party nominee” for both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate races. While there may still be a long primary season in some cases, I hope that the decision we make does not divide the party anymore than it already is. This is not something to approach lightly or without deep reflection. That is why I am writing this email now and why I have copied the party leadership. I’m not going to secretly communicate with anyone (as some of the candidate teams have done). I’m going to be upfront and honest about my concerns. I would like to take a moment to discuss both races below.
In the U.S. House race we have a number of candidates running. All of them have positive qualities and to rule any of them out at this point would be a mistake. Sure, there are some who have the backing of the Republican Party elite’s and others have personal disagreements with one another. Folks, this race is not a popularity contest and the winners are not dictated by party leadership. This is our opportunity as delegates to express our true feelings and to pick the person who we feel will best represent Delaware as our only Congressional Representative. This person must be able to beat John Carney, that is true. This person must also have the courage of their conviction and stand for our Republican principles. Republican principles that align closely with T.E.A. Party principles. Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government (which requires knowledge of the Constitution and respect for its contents and limits) and support for Free Markets are mutually supportive principles that both the GOP and the grassroots “T.E.A. Party” movement can agree on. Whichever candidate you support, these principles ought to be at the front of your thought process. I would urge you to look at all of these candidates and not to exclude anyone based on preconceived notions. Kevin Wade, Glen Urquhart, Michele Rollins and Rose Izzo are all fine people and no matter who wins the nomination (or the primary if it goes there), all of them should be considered for other/future positions within the party or within our state government. WE need their minds and we need their spirit. New leaders are never bad. With that said, I would urge you all to read the latest posts related to the race at the following site: http://www.delawarepolitics.net You will find TREMENDOUS insight into the candidates here from a center-right perspective. Those of you who attended the straw poll may have already decided on where you stand but I can tell you that I am personally supporting Glen Urquhart although all of the candidates have thus far been intriguing and a few have had my support at different times.
In the U.S. Senate race we have two candidates running. This is a contentious race and I will not hide the fact that I have personally already made a decision. Nor will I hide the reasons why I have made this decision. This particular race is between Congressman Mike Castle and challenger Christine O’Donnell. Christine had been a “rumored” candidate for some time but declared officially earlier this year. Congressman Castle has been asked repeatedly to debate Christine in many different settings. For instance, Founders Values (who is a neutral 3rd party) wanted to facilitate the kind of debate and general diffusion of knowledge about the candidates that the founding fathers intended. Both candidates were invited in the same manner and given the same amount of time to respond. Christine accepted but Congressman Castle declined to answer the initial contact. Congressman Castle was eventually asked publicly about the debate and he refused to do it. He said he would not debate Christine O’Donnell period. Congressman Castle feels that it is good politics and somehow in the best interests of the people of Delaware to flat out ignore Christine O’Donnell while simultaneously having his campaign attempt to assassinate her character with apparently baseless accusations. Filing some reports late is a valid concern but apparently one that the FEC did not even find to be egregious enough to investigate. The campaign was sent letters, complied with those requests and the issue became a non-issue to them. I would urge you to approach Christine directly with concerns about other “rumors” and to seek the truth before you make a decision. As for Congressman Castle’s record, he can duck Christine but he cannot duck his record. Below is a list of the concerns that I have with making Congressman Castle your next Senator from Delaware. Ask yourself, can you support him when you see this?
Here is some information that has come to my attention:
1.) Here is an actual video showing Mike Castle’s position on the Constitutionality of Federal involvement in healthcare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3Lx3bdWDt4
2.) Mike Castle has also consistently defended the Global Warming hoax, C.A.F.E standards and as you may know, he voted in favor of Cap and Trade Legislation in June of 2009 (in fact he was one of only 8 Republicans to vote for the legislation). (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=26496)
3.) Mike Castle voted FOR the 2009 Omnibus bill that increased spending 8% on top of the stimulus bill. (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/house/1/votes/86/)
4.) Congressman Castle voted FOR the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street (TARP) in 2008 (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=22467&can_id=26792)
5.) Mike Castle also voted in favor of “Cash for Clunkers” which as we know, took many inexpensive used vehicles off the market that may otherwise have been purchased by people with low incomes who could use the vehicle for transportation. (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=26194)
6.) Mike also voted against a bill that would require the parents of minors to be notified if their child wanted to be transported across state lines in order to obtain abortion services and also voted to allow federal funds to be used for abortions. (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=7973) and (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=8863)
7.) Mike Castle voted AGAINST a 2007 amendment to withhold tax-payer dollars from Planned Parenthood. He then voted against a similar amendment in 2009. ( Quote from the American Conservative Union website “Planned Parenthood. HR 3293 (Roll Call 643). The House defeated an amendment to the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill that would have eliminated funding for Planned Parenthood family planning services, which includes abortion services. ACU has always opposed Planned Parenthood and federal involvement in this area as unconstitutional, but the amendment was defeated July 24, 2009 by a vote of 183-247.”)
8.) Castle voted AGAINST the surge in Iraq which is credited for forcing Al Qaeda out of the country. He also voted FOR investigating President Bush for impeachment for “lying about Iraq.”( Surge – http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/1/votes/99/ Vote to impeach Bush – http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/2/votes/401/)
9.) Congressman Castle voted AGAINST strengthening our missile defense systems in 2007, 2008 AND 2009.
10.) Castle voted against the PAYGO rule on Feb. 4th 2010. (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=28603&can_id=26792)
11.) He also voted to enforce the 90% tax on bonuses paid to employees of TARP recipient companies. This tax is nothing more than a bill of attainder which is a DIRECT violation of Article 1 Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution (“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment). Originally, a Bill of Attainder sentenced an individual to death, though this detail is no longer required to have an enactment be ruled a Bill of Attainder.). (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=24249&can_id=26792)
12.) Congressman Castle has joined Congressman Van Hollen in introducing a bill that would strike back at the Supreme Court’s ruling to uphold Free Speech in American politics, including by those who cannot necessarily speak with their voice. The Supreme Court ruling allows corporations to run political ads and show their support for candidates. (http://www.delawarepolitics.net/a-real-leader/)
13.) National Journal Ranked Mike Castle as the most liberal Republican in the House (http://www.delawarepolitics.net/national-journal-rankings-are-out/)
I have a list much longer than this and if you would like to see it please let me know. I simply cannot bring myself to support Congressman Castle given the extremely long list of votes that offend many of my Conservative and Constitutionalist sensibilities.
I’m going to vote for Christine O’Donnell and I want you all to know that if you do the same I will personally stand by you 100%. Otherwise I will stand alone but rest assured I will stand for principle. Oh and before you wonder if Conservatism can win in Delaware, Pete DuPont was pretty conservative and is still one of the most beloved Gov. we have ever had. In fact, more people would vote for him today than would vote for Markell. Bill Roth had a good run in office as well. The reality is that most of the state (over 50% of those over voting age) doesn’t even register to vote. We have to go out and wake people up (and we are doing that) but these T.E.A. Party principles are supported by more than 65% of the state already. Vote on principle and we will prevail.
Thank you for your time and attention.